When you write garbage, you lose money

[mikesilvia]

Time Magazine's circulation has dropped a staggering 17% in just one year! When you continuously push a political agenda (global warming, Democratic candidate on every cover, etc) you start to lose readership. You can't go a few weeks without some Democratic candidate on the front cover of Time or Newsweek. Then when you place a Republican like Mitt Romney one the cover is says, "Can a Mormon be President" and they write a negative article on him.

Same goes for the New York Time. Their Print revenue is down 7%.

When you write a magazine you should write for all readers, not just global warming believing Democrats who are against the war in Iraq.

The support for the Iraq war is up 8% this month because the surge is working. When you constantly slam a President that 51% of the nation voted for you will lose readership. I am glad to see that political businessmen like the editors at the NYT and Time Magazine have felt the backlash!

[tnopud42]

Neither one of the articles you sited support your contention. Read the Romney article - what was negative about it?

[mikesilvia]

Well, let's see during the same time Time declined 17%, SI went up 70%+.

I don't need to post articles supporting claims. This is an opinion thread. Can you show me something to counter it? Many magazines increased subscription rates and 1 of every 5 subscribers to time cancaled their subscription. I think that is proof enough they write garbage, or at least 17% of their ex-subscribers think so.

Go look at the last 52 issues of Newsweek or Time and let me know how many times Clinton or Obama are on it. That is enough to turn away the 51% of Americans that voted for Bush.

[tnopud42]

"I don't need to post articles supporting claims."

Then why even bother sighting articles? If you are giving an opinion, give it. The articles you posted say nothing about "Bush bashing," global warming, or anti-war sentiment as reasons for subscription declines for TIME. In fact, the articles state several reasons for the decline and none of them have anything to do with politics or government policy.

"Can you show me something to counter it?"

Well, since you say this is an opinion piece - yes, I can - you're wrong. My opinion

"When you constantly slam a President that 51% of the nation voted for you will lose readership."

Actually that's not true. 51% of those who voted, voted for Bush, not 51% of the nation.

"Well, let's see during the same time Time declined 17%, SI went up 70%+"

Not sure what your point here is? Are you saying the writers at SI are pro-Bush, pro-war, and think global warming is a joke? Why even compare the two magazines since their reading audience might not even be the same. Following your reasoning, Reader's Digest declined 50+%, so am I to believe its writers are anti-Bush, anti-war, and fear global warming. Really makes no sense. If you care to make a valid comparison you would have to compare similar magazines.

By the way, from Jan. 2006 to the present, Obama and Hillary each appeared on the cover of TIME once. Other Democrats were Gore (1) and John Kennedy (1)

Republicans on the cover during that time:
Bush and Cheney together
Bush
Cheney
Rice
Romney
Michael Hayes
Schwarzenegger

Also, Reagan and T. Roosevelt

Yep, TIME bombards us with the pictures of Obama and Hillary.